Are We Misunderstanding Memory?

It’s often said that learning is a lasting change in long-term memory (Kirschner et al., 2006).
This definition has helped sharpen curriculum design and refocus schools on long-term retention, but it also brings a risk.

When misunderstood, it reduces memory to a container of facts: neat, static, and easily assessed. Pupils become memory sticks, able to store and retrieve information, but not necessarily able to use it.

Yet in cognitive science, memory is not just retrieval. It is a construct: a dynamic, interconnected set of cognitive capabilities that include recall, understanding, organisation, and reasoning (Willingham, 2009; Chi et al., 1981; Bransford et al., 2000).

If we stop at what pupils can remember, we miss the deeper question: What kind of memory are they developing — and how usable is it?

Memory is not a list; it’s a construct.

Cognitive scientists recognise that memory encompasses much more than isolated recall.

• Willingham (2009) argues that memory is the residue of thought. Pupils remember what they think deeply about, not just what they’ve heard.
• Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser (1981) showed that experts and novices recall the same information differently because experts organise their knowledge into schemas, mental structures that allow for connection, prediction, and flexibility.
• Bjork and Bjork (1992) distinguish between storage strength (how well something is encoded) and retrieval strength (how accessible it is). Pupils can “know” something but struggle to retrieve it, especially under pressure or in unfamiliar contexts.

In other words, memory is usable when it is well organised, connected, and applied.

This leads to a more nuanced view of learning, one that sees memory as comprising three interwoven aspects:

• Remembering – retrieving facts, procedures or experiences
• Knowing – making connections, forming understanding, and organising concepts
• Reasoning – using knowledge to justify, solve problems, critique or explain

These are not linear stages. They are interdependent dimensions of learning. Each reinforces the others, and all are needed for durable, flexible knowledge.

Are current strategies enough?

We’ve made great strides in strengthening recall. Techniques like retrieval practice, spaced learning, and knowledge organisers are well-evidenced and widely adopted (Agarwal et al., 2021; Dunlosky et al., 2013). But these tools, by design, target memory access, not memory use.

Without support for connecting, explaining, and applying what’s been remembered, pupils are left with fragmented knowledge: available, but inert. This may explain why pupils sometimes succeed in quizzes but falter when asked to use the same knowledge in writing, discussion, or unfamiliar tasks. The issue isn’t forgetting; it’s that memory wasn’t fully constructed in the first place.

The missing pieces:  metacognition and oracy

To support memory in its fullest sense, pupils need more than content.  They need strategies for thinking clearly and talking with purpose. These aren’t extras — they are cognitive tools that help pupils do the real work of learning.

Metacognition
Metacognition — the monitoring and control of thought processes — helps pupils plan, monitor, and reflect on how they learn. Research shows that teaching metacognitive strategies improves both retention and transfer of knowledge (EEF, 2018; Veenman et al., 2006).

It helps pupils:

• Make connections
• Predict
• Visualise processes, details and outcomes
• Ask questions to clarify, explore, and refine thinking
• Seek clues with which to make inferences
• Reflect, evaluate and respond
  
  

These strategies are not theoretical but practical, teachable, and proven to raise attainment, particularly for disadvantaged pupils.

Oracy
Oracy — the disciplined art of speaking and listening — is critical in organising and using memory. Studies show that structured talk improves comprehension, reasoning, and vocabulary acquisition (Mercer et al., 2004; Alexander, 2012).

When pupils speak aloud to explain, justify, and build on ideas:

• They deepen understanding through rehearsal
• They clarify concepts through dialogue
• They make thinking visible — for themselves and others
  
  

Oracy is not just about fluency. It’s about disciplinary thinking in spoken form — just as important as written expression.

Metacognition and oracy: building usable memory

Together, these approaches support every aspect of memory as a construct:

They’re not add-ons. They are core pedagogical tools for teaching any subject, like modelling, questioning, or feedback.

Want to explore this further?

We’re offering two webinars packed with practical, evidence-informed strategies to help you embed metacognition and oracy across the curriculum:

Live Webinars